Why We Endorse Former Facebook Exec Chris Kelly For California Attorney General (Video Interview)

We first reported that Former Facebook Chief Privacy Officer Chris Kelly is running for Attorney General of California in the 2010 election. He confirmed the bid earlier this year. Kelly’s official campaign site is here.

We’ve been looking for time to sit down with Kelly to do a long form interview on a wide range of issues before giving (or not giving) him our endorsement (see our 2008 presidential endorsements here). We know his track record at Facebook, and his general politics (libertarian-leaning Democrat), but there was lots more to learn. The last thing California needs is someone like Henry McMaster taking over the top law enforcement job in the state.

The most important issue first: we want Kelly to give us (meaning me, personally) immunity in California for any crimes allegedly committed while he’s in office. Give us that and the endorsement is his, no more questions asked. His answer? Sadly, no:

Most of the rest of the interview is serious. We just have a long tradition of ribbing Kelly at every opportunity (read the last paragraph of this April Fools joke from 2008, and see our birthday present to Kelly earlier this month that mocked recent Britney Spears sponsored virtual gifts on Facebook).

Our Endorsement

We are enthusiastically endorsing Chris Kelly as the next Attorney General of California. He has intelligent and tough positions on crime, seems to understand the limitations of the office and what can realistically be accomplished, and has a deeper understanding than anyone of the key privacy and other issues affecting Silicon Valley companies and the people that use tech/Internet products. We have a significant difference of opinion with Kelly on how Facebook handled Holocaust denial groups earlier this year (and spend some time in the interview discussing that), but other than that we’re on the same page.

Our interview and the full transcript (thanks, SimulScribe!) is below.


Mr. MICHAEL ARRINGTON (Host): Hi. This is Mike Arrington from TechCrunch. I am here with Attorney General Candidate Chris Kelly.

Mr. CHRIS KELLY (Attorney General Candidate): Thanks for having me, Mike.

Mr. ARRINGTON: Thank you for coming by our office to talk with us on video a little bit about your campaign.

Mr. KELLY: Glad to sit with you on a glorious day.

Mr. ARRINGTON: It’s nice.

Mr. KELLY: It’s a nice day.


Mr. KELLY: Good day to be outside.

Mr. ARRINGTON: So, you until two weeks ago or three weeks ago, you were full time at Facebook as a chief privacy officer. When did you start in Facebook?

Mr. KELLY: So I started on Facebook in September of 2005. We’re about 25 people.

Mr. ARRINGTON: Very early on.

Mr. KELLY: Two and a half million users.


Mr. KELLY: And now, we’re over a thousand people and – and 250 million users. So it’s been a little – pretty good for us, right.

Mr. ARRINGTON: And you’ve now – you’re on a leave of absence now?

Mr. KELLY: I’m on leave of absence now.

Mr. ARRINGTON: Does that mean your stock options stopped vesting or…

Mr. KELLY: So, it’s – I mean, not…

Mr. ARRINGTON: Or has it been four years?

Mr. KELLY: I’m not commenting on the particulars of, of these, you know, of these matters. But you know, but to – we’re, you know, I’ve been working hard.

Mr. ARRINGTON: How much stock…

Mr. KELLY: I’m still consulting. Yeah.

Mr. ARRINGTON: You’re still – OK.

Mr. KELLY: Still consulting.

Mr. ARRINGTON: And how much stock did you sell on the recent $100 million transaction?

Mr. KELLY: So again…

Mr. ARRINGTON: We agreed not to discuss any…

Mr. KELLY: I’m not going to comment on the particulars of these things. But – but, you know, I’m happy to be at the company for as long as I’ve been.

Mr. ARRINGTON: I want to get up to Facebook a little more later. Not – not you’re not worth but, but just talk about some of the property issues of Facebook and… but let’s start with your background and your politics. Can you just tell us a little bit about who you are?

Mr. KELLY: So, I grew up in San Jose. We moved to San Jose in 1977 before it was Silicon Valley, just when the chip revolution was starting. And I grew up, went to high school at (unintelligible) down in San Jose and got some good judgment education, spent my first two years in college at Berkeley. Decided that it was too big and too close to home, I home. I need to see the rest of the world and that… but I knew that the Bay Area would be my home. So, I headed off to Georgetown and got some more judgment education in. Started PC program in clinical theory of all things at Yale after I graduate from there and then became an emirate of the fascinating, you know, young obscure southern Governor named Bill Clinton. I dropped out of grad school to go to work for and then working for Clinton for three years and worked on hundred thousand cops, community police on the streets and Americorps among other programs, elementary and secretary education, (unintelligible) authorization. I worked with now Los Angeles School Superintendent Ray Cortines when he was head of the Inter-covenant Letter Agency Group in Education and had a wonderful, wonderful experience in Washington but decided I needed to go back to school and I went to Law School of Harvard and I came out here…

Mr. ARRINGTON: How many degrees do you have?

Mr. KELLY: I’ve got three…

Mr. ARRINGTON: Georgetown, yeah.

Mr. KELLY: Three…

Mr. ARRINGTON: Yale was…

Mr. KELLY: I took my masters degree at Yale.

Mr. ARRINGTON: And then a Harvard Law degree.

Mr. KELLY: And then, yup, a law degree from Harvard in ’97.


Mr. KELLY: And then came back out here, clerk for a federal judge in San Diego for a year, and then joined our fellow alma mater Wilson Sonsini in Palo Alto.

Mr. ARRINGTON: Yeah, we both worked at Wilson Sonsini – what year – but you, what years were you there?

Mr. KELLY: So I was there ’98 and ’99.

Mr. ARRINGTON: Yes, we overlapped a little but never had the pleasure to work with you so…

Mr. KELLY: Yeah.

Mr. ARRINGTON: So, is it – is it fair to characterize you as a liberal taxing spend democrat then?

Mr. KELLY: I wouldn’t say that. I think that I’ve got a healthy appreciation for government and what it can do but I want to make it more effective and more efficient. I think that, you know, tax dollars are, are hard to come by these days and we obviously need to have a great deal of government reform. Make sure that the government works for people again.

Mr. ARRINGTON: We tax too hard or too low today?

Mr. KELLY: So, I think that it’s hard to say right now with the tax make up that we have is, is a confusing one and one that obviously does not work. I mean, it’s one of the reasons that we…

Mr. ARRINGTON: I paid a year. I pay more taxes if our tax is almost simpler…

Mr. KELLY: And also, it’s the ability to know that the money is going to good purposes and that’s one of the things that we have to work on and convince people overtime that the government can spend their money effective. There’s a fundamentals of breaking a faith with the people that you know, is a lot of the reaction the government needs. So on the rejection of Proclamation 1831E in the last ballot, people expect Sacramento to actually do its job to, you know, make…


Mr. KELLY: Make hard decisions and stick with them and to get a budget done. That’s one of the things that I want to see out of this race and I think one of the things that it will be a sleeper issue for some time but will be a big deal at the end as government perform and who’s going to most effectively guide, you know, be the best lawyer for the people in the government reform that’s coming because folks are really, really angry and really, you know, looking for something different.

Mr. ARRINGTON: So, you’re actually looking forward to being the attorney general, it’s not just a stepping stone to parade for president, governor or senator?

Mr. KELLY: Nope. I think it’s a great job. I think it’s one of the best jobs in politics and particularly, this… at this period in the State’s history.


Mr. KELLY: You know, I think it’s likely that we’re going to have a constitutional convention in 2011 and to be the chief lawyer for the people in that convention would be very, very exciting and sort of a surprising you know, practical way to apply my time working in early American political thought and political theory and constitutional theory.

Mr. ARRINGTON: So, it seems like one of the things that attorney generals from various states do to get press is attack social networks.

Mr. KELLY: Yeah.

Mr. ARRINGTON: As chief privacy officer of Facebook, you’ve had to deal with negotiations with attorneys general, I’m sure. MySpace has had those issues for even longer. Recently we saw your future colleague, although he’ll be leaving office as you’re entering Henry McMaster, the attorney general of South Carolina going to suicide mission against Craigslist. How are you going to deal with that?

Mr. KELLY: Well, it’s one of the things that obviously, the attorneys general across the nation has been focused on is internet safety over the years and Facebook, we’ve had an extraordinarily responsible record of actually building a safer and more trusted internet and that’s made our relationship with the attorneys general much better than with a lot of other sites. And I think that, you know, major sites across the net have been focused on this issue and are trying to deal with it in a responsible way. I hope that bringing additional knowledge for both sides of the fence on this will help the attorneys general across the nation in helping, in assisting companies and consumers across the country in you know, in having a safer internet experience. So I think that having been on you know, on this side of the table and representing the largest social network in the world will stand being in good stead in providing input on how we build the same contrast…

Mr. ARRINGTON: OK. But – OK. So that’s great. But let’s get to a real answer like is it BS that the AGs have gone after social networks to the extent they have. Are they overblown issues to get press?

Mr. KELLY: So there’s a real concern out there about safety on the Internet, and obviously companies can’t prevent everything from going wrong online just as states and police departments don’t prevent every crime in communities. And so you weave, work for a productively with responsible change(ph) channel and you know stay focused on these issues. They’ve understood when we engage in productive dialog that we can’t stop everything bad from happening. I think we got to a very good place working with a trained General Cooper or trained General Blumenthal with a variety of people from across the nation during General Cuomo to make responsible improvements on the way that online safety works.

Mr. ARRINGTON: OK. I’m going to try this one more time. You’re saying some great things. I mean, and it’s important but do you think that attorneys, generals and not just McMaster(ph) but- I’m sorry, who was the guy in New York? Spitzer. You think occasionally they after online sites and other sites just because it’s such as good- it’s such a huge press in for them. Sometimes they get more than their share of negative attention.

Mr. KELLY: I think that sometimes there are misunderstandings about what’s going on and how responsible companies are. I also think that an IRE(ph) company has always been responsible…


Mr. KELLY: And so, you know, that there are some legitimate targets out there and there are some people who, you know, engage in changing behavior online. And I think it’s entirely…

Mr. ARRINGTON: Are you talking about Craigslist now?

Mr. KELLY: No, of course, not.

Mr. ARRINGTON: Do you plan of going after Craigslist? It’s your first duty in office.

(Soundbite of laughter)

Mr. KELLY: Obviously not something that I’m focused on.

Mr. ARRINGTON: I’m not going to get you the comment directly on McMaster(ph) at all, am I?

Mr. KELLY: Probably not.

(Soundbite of laughter)

Mr. ARRINGTON: All right. We’ll leave that – we’ll let that on go for now. Let’s go back to the campaign. How much money do you need to raise to become attorney general in California?

Mr. KELLY: So, it’s hard to say for sure. I mean, the candidates last time raised about, you know, four or five million dollars.


Mr. KELLY: And I think that that’s what it’s going to take, you, know, to be competitive.


Mr. KELLY: And – but I plan to raise more than that. I think that, you know, getting our message out, you know, obviously – I actually come to this in advantage by the time of the June 2010 primary. Looks like about a third of the state of California is going to be on Facebook. Everybody else in this race comes from a relatively small base.


Mr. KELLY: You know, no one’s going to know exactly what they’ve done in their communities and you know, people will know what I’ve done in my community because they’ll be experiencing on a daily basis. You know, the change in how connected people are online and updates that they get from their family and friends everyday I think has left people with a very good impression of Facebook and what it does to them. That’s why people keep returning and that’s why it continues to grow quite rapidly. So that’s where I start from in terms of what people are going to think about my record. That’s a good place to start from. So, you know, we’re going to have a robust online campaign. We’ve really just…


Mr. KELLY: As you mentioned, we’ve really just started in the past, you know, three weeks for…

Mr. ARRINGTON: Your 39th birthday.

Mr. KELLY: Exactly.

Mr. ARRINGTON: Your wife sent out an email asking for – it’s brilliant – asking for $39 donations for your 39th birthday. It was your 39th, you just turned 39.

Mr. KELLY: Yeah, I just turned 39.

Mr. ARRINGTON: And how did it do that – I mean, get some donations?

Mr. KELLY: It went extraordinary well.

Mr. ARRINGTON: OK, great. And also I gave you a Facebook gift. The Britney Spears – what was it? The man…

Mr. KELLY: I forget what it was. It was a Britney Spears – which – which I appreciate it and I hope you appreciated my commentary and response.

Mr. ARRINGTON: I did. I appreciate it – I even deleted it immediately because we’re trying to run a serious campaign and I’m doing almost everything I can to undermine that. So…

Mr. KELLY: I think that there’s room for humor in every serious campaign.

Mr. ARRINGTON: Moving away from him. I want to talk about Holocaust now on Facebook, an issue that you and I have been completely in opposite and (unintelligible). But tiny bit of background, on Facebook and other sites in the Internet, some – among other hate groups, some anti – I’m sorry, some Holocaust in our groups have popped up on Facebook and got a lot of press. And some people, including me, suggested to Face – the right thing for Facebook to do under its own sort of terms of service, nothing else affecting their decision, was to just delete these groups.

Mr. KELLY: Right.

Mr. ARLINGTON: You – Facebook decided not to delete these groups wholesale. Can you explain sort of what behind the decision on that?

Mr. KELLY: So, the direct commentary on whether or not a historical event happened is not something that we would generally take action over. Hate speech, we do regularly take action over and are happy to. It’s one of the things that we’re – it was important to us from the beginning and I help set-up these policies that hate speech directed into individuals direction groups we take them. And, you know, obviously, we can’t like, I was saying before, we can’t prevent bad people from doing bad things initially. Whenever the mentioning of the Holocaust veers into any direct expression of hatred we take it down, and we take action against the individuals. We think that not having a blanket policy of taking down, you know, the mere assertion of, you know, historical falsity is – of a historical falsity – it allows for the identification of those who are expressing hatred and for more speech to step into the breach and to attack their falsehoods. We think that that’s the best policy to pursue. But when it veers into hate speech, and that’s one of the things that’s kind of got lost in some of the online debate, we do take it down.

Mr. ARRINGTON: You guys clearly have taken down a lot of hateful content. I think the point of disagreement between me and some others and Facebook with you as somewhat of a spokesperson on this issue – in fact, I assume this was – I mean, your chief privacy officer wouldn’t go through you but you were definitely one of decision-makers in the company, right, as an executive?

Mr. KELLY: I participated in the discussions on this, absolutely.

Mr. ARRINGTON: The point of disagreement seems to be is the denial of the Holocaust in itself hates speech because the only reason for anyone to deny the Holocaust is because they have a dislike of the Jewish race. And that’s – I mean, do we agree, that’s the point of disagreement

Mr. KELLY: And I think that the instant that that take some further expression…


Mr. KELLY: We’ve been more than happy to take that content down, and to suspend the accounts of the people who perpetrate it.


Mr. KELLY: So that’s an important fact as well. You know, we’ve always had a content policy based on you know – based on identity and based on responsibility for what you post. You’ll not just have – you know, it’s not just a slap on the wrist, it’s not just some anonymous post goes up and you can just do it again. Your account could stake it out, and you’ve lost the ability to register – to re-register from that email address. Now, of course, there are, you know, attempts to – some attempts are always going on and there’s a lot of hate in the world.


Mr. KELLY: One of the things that we need to know is that there is that much hate in the world so that we can speak out against it.

Mr. ARRINGTON: One more last question on this and I’m going to move on because you’ve made yourself very clear. Do you personally think that anyone that denies a Holocaust, do you feel if that somebody does deny the Holocaust that they might have some prejudice issues against…

Mr. KELLY: Absolutely, no question about it. And I’ve made that clear in my public statements.

Mr. ARRINGTON: OK. You get the job, what’s next? Like what are you going to do to make the state a better place, a safer place?

Mr. KELLY: I think we need to stay focused on a few issues. I think that crime is – as a chief law enforcement officer, crime is going to be the most important issue and that we need to have a strategic plan in conjunction…

Mr. ARRINGTON: Can you deal with the noise issue across the streets…

Mr. KELLY: I’ve doing that. I – I – I suppose we can dispatch…

Mr. ARRINGTON: Like a police force.

Mr. KELLY: The troops so that the – unfortunately, the highway patrol and the police and the – you know, local police don’t report to the Attorney General…

Mr. ARRINGTON: Can we change that?

Mr. KELLY: So I don’t have the power – I suppose we could.

Mr. ARRINGTON: Because I have your cell phone number and if oh, say you take care…

Mr. KELLY: See? You know.


Mr. KELLY: Does the ability to deal with these things in real time.

Mr. ARRINGTON: Doctor Crime.

Mr. KELLY: OK. So, we need a strategic plan to reduce crime across the state and obviously, there have been some great steps in policing that have – that have taken place over the last 20 years in Los Angeles in particular Phil Bratton…


Mr. KELLY: The police chief down there has been a symbol for how to do these things better across the nation. You deploy technology so that you understand better where crime is occurring, where hotspots are happening and how you break it up. But we also need a comprehensive 58-county prosecution strategy to make sure that the right crimes are prosecuted and that we make sure that the people who are perpetrating most of the crime end up in jail, that we effectively enforce our Three-strikes laws, that we separate those who can’t conform their conduct to decent social norms from the community. And it’s hard sometimes to say that and, you know, that sometimes people’s compassion overwhelms reason in these concepts but it’s really, really important that we communicate to criminals and that we communicate to society as a whole, that we’re going to take crime seriously, we’re going to work to reduce it and I want to be crystal clear with the voters of the state of California about that.

Mr. ARRINGTON: Does that mean that there’ll be more people in prison when you leave office than when you enter?

Mr. KELLY: I hope not because what I want to do is to prison reform from the front end, that you improve the educational system. Obviously, it won’t have direct – you know, experience over that although right, you know, I’ve served for five years now on the board of the San Francisco (unintelligible) Academy in each Palo Alto trying to take kids who are very much at risk and keep them on an educational path to ensure that they, you know, that they don’t veer off into the criminal justice system. What we can’t do is have prisoner form on the backend by setting an artificial target of inmate reduction.


Mr. KELLY: Which is what Sacramento is doing right now. So, the proposal is to reduce the state prison population by 15 percent effectively by FIA(ph). You know, either by pushing them down into local jails to, you know, insecure release plans when what you’re going to get is those people whose 70 percent recidivism rate. The people are going to come right back. They’re not even actually achieve the cost savings, there are going to be hundreds of thousands of additional crimes committed. And you just end up in a worst state all around. We need to think about how we handle things on the front end with additional diversionary options for first time offenders. Getting rid of mandatory minimums for first time offenders, allowing more flexibility if it’s your first, you know, experience with the criminal justice system. But if you come back repeatedly, you should eventually be put away.

Mr. ARRINGTON: Before it gets to death penalty.

Mr. KELLY: I am for the death penalty. I – my first instinct, actually, when I was growing up was to be against it. I had a sort of philosophical bent – I – you know sort of questioned whether the state had, you know, legitimate interest in putting a citizen to death. And the case that changed my mind on that was the Polly Klaas case. And Richard Allen Davis – and he was tried in San Jose when I was a teenager…


Mr. KELLY: And I had to, you know, ask myself was there a situation in which someone is utterly forfeited the right to live and my answer was yes. From there, it depends on how you administer it well and what I say to my friends who are (unintelligible) that the question first of all is there ever a circumstance in which killing is justified. And I think that there are circumstances in which killing is justified even by the state. And from there the question is to as it administer it well in a different state with a different system, California’s Law in special circumstances is very clear. It’s very clean-cut. There’ve been three reviews in the death penalty in the last ten years including in the last major review. I looked at every file of the, you know, the 600 – more than 650 inmates who are on a death row in California. There are no credible claims of innocence in the California system right now among death row inmates. And you know, it doesn’t mean that I’ve closed my mind to – if that ever got presented to me again, one of those cases if there were new evidence. I believe deeply in DNA testing and making of especially the capital defendants availability of great legal resources, of great technical resources to prove, given the chance to prove that they didn’t commit the crime. But at the end of the day if they did it, I’m comfortable with the death penalty.

Mr. ARRINGTON: Illegal Immigration.

Mr. KELLY: Well, I think we need comprehensive immigration reform. You know, we have to make sure that there’s no way that we’re going to be able to, you know, deport, everyone who’s in the country illegally. And the – the vast majority of…

Mr. ARRINGTON: Shouldn’t we deport the ones in California to Nevada or Oregon or something?

Mr. KELLY: Well, no.

Mr. ARRINGTON: Is that Illegal?

Mr. KELLY: There would be some issues there. I think that we need to – you know first of all appreciate the fact that most people who are illegal immigrants in California, that’s the only crime that they’ve committed.

Mr. ARRINGTON: Yeah, the productive members of society.

Mr. KELLY: They have committed the crime of illegal – but they are productive members of society. We have to embrace that fact and understand it. Most of them pay taxes through payroll systems, through, you know…

Mr. ARRINGTON: Sales tax (unintelligible)…

Mr. KELLY: Sales tax exactly. Now, if somebody steps over the line and has, you know an interaction with the criminal justice system, that’s the point which we should be looking deporting.

Mr. ARRINGTON: Well, OK. So – but my housekeeper who I believe is legal – is legal, especially on record – I believe she goes back to Mexico every year and comes right back. She flies down and then she, you know, use coyotes to come back over the border, I’ve heard, maybe it was her friend. I forgot but – they’ll come after me for this – but – do you think we need to find a way to shut down the border, or do you think that having some poor in this is OK?

Mr. KELLY: Well, actually I don’t think that the poor is as good. I think that as a state a country needs to be able to control its borders. We need to do a better job than we’ve done. But, the ultimate way to address this issue is to have the economic development, you know, the strong and the state is very focus. But also we need to make sure that the Mexican economy…


Mr. KELLY: Once they get through…


Mr. KELLY: This incredibly difficult time with the drug war that’s going on down there that which is spilling over our borders and I’m very concerned about it. We need to make sure that that they end up having productive jobs down there too.


Mr. KELLY: That’s the ultimate route.

Mr. ARRINGTON: Because Canadians are flooding the border.

Mr. KELLY: Yeah.

Mr. ARRINGTON: You know, if we can get their economy…

Mr. KELLY: Yes.

Mr. ARRINGTON: Help them get their economy straightened out of my…

Mr. KELLY: And I think that overtime. And that’s productive for California too.


Mr. KELLY: It’s not – it’s not an either or a choice at the end of the day. That you know, we can grow and have a high, you know, high skill, high wage strategy, which is always been the California approach, and has always been the U.S. approach. Whereas you know, Mexico overtime initially will have core manufacturing, which is lower skill and lower wage, but overtime they’ll have the chance to build up economy as well. And that’s good for us. That avoids the problems of illegal immigration. Again, what we need more than anything else are comprehensive strategies to think about these things and not sort of sloganeering in sound bites.

Mr. ARRINGTON: Legalization of drug use.

Mr. KELLY: Um-hmm.

Mr. ARRINGTON: I’ve heard there’s one on the pillars of your campaign is to legalize marijuana use. Is that…

Mr. KELLY: I don’t think that’s a…

Mr. ARRINGTON: No, no? Did I say anything…

Mr. KELLY: I don’t think that’s part of a – part of my campaign. What I’ve said about – about medical marijuana is that it’s been part of state law for almost 10 years now. And we haven’t developed in effect a regulatory system around that yet. We just had the lifting of the thread of federal prosecution by the Attorney General of the United States. He has made it clear that for clubs and individuals who are in compliance with California law on medical marijuana that he will not prosecute them.


Mr. KELLY: I think this is a great opportunity to see what kind of regulatory system we can develop. L.A. has had to aggressively revisit their regulatory system which was inadequate and had all sorts of loopholes in it they’re working on that right now. Oakland has recently introduced taxes on medical marijuana. I want to see how these things develop before we have a debate about full legalization and the discussion about full legalization.

Mr. ARRINGTON: So, you privately, off record, promised to me that if you become attorney general – what?

Mr. KELLY: Oh-oh

Mr. ARRINGTON: Here it goes. Let me…

Mr. KELLY: You know what – what have you imagined that I…

Mr. ARRINGTON: I figure any kind legal trouble if we – if you’re just going to clear that up right away. So I just want on the record for you to state like if TechCrunch endorses you, the attorney general candidate in California, that I – will have, for the time you’re in the office, we’ll have no illegal issues whatsoever.

(Soundbite of laughter)

Mr. KELLY: As you know I cannot promise that and I would not promise that even if I could.

Mr. ARRINGTON: But all…

Mr. KELLY: But I like you very much and I promise that you will get a full and fair hearing…

(Soundbite of laughter)

Mr. KELLY: And all of your – all of the constitutional rights in which you are entitled.

Mr. ARRINGTON: And then the last thing is clearly you’re going to run for president at some point.

(Soundbite of laughter)

Mr. ARRINGTON: Your chief of staff is very nervous right now.

(Soundbite of laughter)

Mr. ARRINGTON: You’ve also promised me privately a cabinet position on Supreme Court. And I do have a law degree so I think I’m qualified – more qualified that some sitting justices. Is that something you wanting to sort of…

Mr. KELLY: Well, as we’ve discussed…

Mr. ARRINGTON: On the record.

Mr. KELLY: You know, I’m willing to look at you and some other candidates who have law degrees for a variety of roles.

Mr. ARRINGTON: That sounds like a yes. I mean, a minor cabinet position might, you know, would agriculture – there’s a whole bunch of them and no one even knows what they are.

Mr. KELLY: As you say if you’re – if you continue to develop your skills over the next, you know, 20 years I will introduce you to whoever is the president at that point and we’ll see what we can do for you.

Mr. ARRINGTON: It sounds like a promise to me.

(Soundbite of laughter)

Mr. ARRINGTON: Chris, thanks very much. Good luck with the campaign. Anything else you want to say to the TechCrunch readers before we go?

Mr. KELLY: Well, first of all I want to say thank you very much, Mike, for having me and thank you to the TechCrunch readers for, you know, their loyal support of Facebook and hope of me in this race. I think that we have a great opportunity to change the state and make the state and the world a better place. And I need your help.

Mr. ARRINGTON: Of course if it doesn’t work out, you still have your job at Facebook too, right?

Mr. KELLY: There’s a lot of possibilities for Facebook that are developing from here. So it will be a wonderful place. It’s been very hard to leave.


Mr. KELLY: It’s a…

Mr. ARRINGTON: You watch that company grow from like you said 25 employees to whatever it is now, a thousand nine hundred…

Mr. KELLY: Yeah, you know, just a couple – a couple of blocks from here on Emerson Street.


Mr. KELLY: Was where I wondered in and I met – and I met Mark Zuckerberg and…

Mr. ARRINGTON: Randomly or was it a schedule interviewers?

Mr. KELLY: No, no, yeah, we had – got some common friends and we’re introduced and we hit it off. And I became the first general counsel of the company and you know, we have – you know, I gave that role up to focus more on privacy and on the – what we’re going to do with data and how we’re going to take things in a different direction and give people more control over their information.

Mr. ARRINGTON: Good luck with the campaign seriously…

Mr. KELLY. Thank you very much, Mike.

Mr. ARRINGTON: And we’re clearly endorsing you such as the cabinet position promised and…

(Soundbite of laughter)

Mr. ARRINGTON: And you know, I look forward to watching this and have – I’m sorry, I don’t mean unravel.

(Soundbite of laughter)

Mr. ARRINGTON: Watching this develop over the next the best like basically the next year is when all the action is going to occur.

Mr. KELLY: Yep. Thank you very much, Mike.

Mr. ARRINGTON: Thanks. OK. Bye.